Tripura

StateCommission

A/63/2017

Sri. Ashok Roy Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Amitabh Deb - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Biplabendu Roy

03 Mar 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.63.2017

 

1. Mr. Ashok Roy Chowdhury,

Prop. North East Steel,

South Indranagar, Near Big Bridge,

Agartala - 799006, West Tripura.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

 

Vs

 

 

1. Mr. Amitabha Deb,

S/o Late Ajit Kr. Deb,

Qtr. No. T/IV/B-101 (Old), 

Lake View Quarters, College Tilla,

Agartala - 799004. West Tripura

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Biplabendu Roy, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                           In person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 03.03.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 96 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the petitioner-respondent directing the appellant i.e. the opposite party in the complaint case to pay an amount of Rs.7,025/- to the petitioner-respondent within one month, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Biplabendu Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) and Mr. Amitabha Deb, respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) appearing in person.
3. Today is fixed for order. As agreed to by the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at this order stage itself.
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant, Amitabha Deb, filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala alleging that on 05.09.2016, he purchased 1609.2 kg TMT Bar from the shop of the opposite party on payment of Rs.75,782/-, but subsequently the opposite party admitted that the actual price of the TMT Bar was Rs.73,757/-. Thus the Opposite Party agreed to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,025/- to the complainant on future purchase. Complainant did not purchase any item subsequently and asked the opposite party for refund of the excess amount he paid, but the opposite party misbehaved with him and refused to pay the amount without checking the cash book. After checking the cash book, the opposite party admitted that Rs.2,077/- was paid in excess of actual value of the TMT Bar, but told to the complainant that as it is a old matter, so it cannot be refunded. Due to misbehavior, the complainant suffered mentally and prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/-.

5. The opposite party appeared and filed his written statement denying the claim, though he admitted about the purchase of 1609.2 kg TMT Bar and payment of Rs.75,782/- by the complainant against the actual price of the TMT Bar of Rs.73,757/-. It is also stated that the Opposite party agreed to refund Rs.2,025/-, but as the wife of the complainant purchased other items from his shop, the price of which was Rs.27,102/- and she paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by cheque and as the remaining amount was not paid by her, the said amount was adjusted in the account of the complainant. Thus the complainant is actually entitled to get Rs.77/-. Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the case:

1. Whether the O.P. misbehaved with the petitioner and failed to refund the excess amount Rs.2,025/- paid by him by the petitioner?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by O.P.? 

7.  Complainant produced the challan for Rs.75,781.60, the amount of which was paid by him, request letter for refund of the excess amount addressed to the opposite party, letter of postmaster regarding receipt of the letter. He also examined himself as P.W.1.
8. Opposite party, on the other hand, produced the application for submission of the Accounts Statement of SBI, copy of the Accounts Statement of SBI. The opposite party also examined himself as O.P.W1.
9. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
10. Mr. Roy, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum did not consider that the excess amount paid by the complainant was adjusted with the account of his wife, namely, Seema Datta and the opposite party also offered him to get back the remaining amount of Rs.77/-. Thus, there is no deficiency of service.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, the complainant in person while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the contention of the opposite party is not correct as the purchase of steel rod by him from the opposite party has no connection with the purchase of his wife Seema Datta. More so, towards purchase of TMT bar worth Rs. 75,000/-, he paid Rs.47,778/- by cheque and the rest amount was paid by cash which is admitted by the opposite party. He further submits that his wife purchased block bricks from one Biswajit Das, cost of which was Rs.27,102/- and accordingly, his wife handed over a cheque for Rs.25,000/- to the said Biswajit Das and the remaining amount was paid on cash. He also submits that when he demanded payment of the excess amount to the opposite party, he was harassed and the said money was not refunded on the plea that his wife had purchased block bricks and did not pay an amount of Rs.2,025/-.
12. We have gone through the evidence on record from which it appears that the opposite party himself admitted regarding the actual price of the TMT Bar and the excess payment of Rs.2,025/-. It is also admitted position that the said excess amount was not refunded by the opposite party, the appellant herein. So far the contention of the opposite party that the wife of the complainant purchased block bricks for an amount of Rs.27,102/- and she paid only an amount of Rs.25,000/- by cheque and the rest amount was not paid cannot be accepted as the complainant specifically stated in his evidence that his wife paid the value of the block bricks of Rs.25,000/- by cheque + Rs.2,102/- by cash to one  Biswajit Das.  Said Biswajit Das was not produced by the opposite party. It is also not the case of the Opposite Party that the said Biswajit Das has any connection with his firm, rather the specific case of the complainant is that block bricks purchased by his wife were not owned or sold by the opposite party. So this purchase cannot be connected with the purchase of the complainant.
13. In paragraph-11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum has given its reason for not accepting the contention of the opposite party which are as follows:-

“11. From scrutiny of the evidence of both the sides it appears that O.P. did not pay the excess amount paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs.2025/-. Request of the petitioner was turned down.  Petitioner requested the O.P. in writing. No response was given by the O.P. O.P. tried to relate the transaction made by his wife, Sima Datta. Petitioner refused but admitted such transaction with the shop of O.P. Signature of the wife of Amitabha Deb, Seema Datta also not found in the voucher. So we cannot connect this transaction with the transaction of petitioner. 

12. It is admitted and established fact that O.P. failed to pay Rs.2025/- excess amount paid by the petitioner even after 4 months when the petitioner demanded the refund. He also issued two cash memo for same item showing different price. O.P. misbehaved and payment not made. This is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for it. We therefore, direct the O.P. to pay Rs.2025/- excess amount paid by the petitioner to O.P. We also direct O.P. to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In total O.P. is to pay Rs.7,025/- to the petitioner. No other cost is allowed. Both the points are decided accordingly.”

14. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong while deciding the case of the complainant and accordingly, the impugned judgment is affirmed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura